Jan 25 2012:
It's the architecture of our brains. Remember, though, the brain is plastic and capable of learning through great effort. A valid class to add to any curriculum for children is "Compassion" or something like that.

Jan 25 2012:
I agree very much that "A valid class to add to every curriculum for children is "Compassion". The only way to create a better world is to create a better next generation. Humans can only be better if there is collective compassion in the "nurture". Until then it is repeat history..

Feb 11 2012:
I agree with you both. Until we start to notice that the biosphere is the bottom line and there's no nearby planet to exploit, our species has a serious gap in it's logic which could be identified as The Compassion Gap.

Until we see that we are all in this together, we are pretty much headed for extinction.

Feb 11 2012:
Closing the "serious gap which exists in our logic, " the Compassion Gap, " is priority #1. This can only be achieved when we work together as one team. Everyone needs to realize that we are on the same team.

We are one team working for the betterment of humankind. Stay good. Stay light.

Jan 28 2012:
In some very rare cases, violence is not necessary. In our country India, the independance movement was non-violent to a large extent. Gandhii brought independence to our country from colonial rule using non-violence (satyagraha)

Jan 25 2012:
We do not. As long as male domination persists, there will be the noise of violence making people wretched. THE WOMEN'S REVOLUTION IS THE LAST REVOLUTION THAT THE WORLD WILL EVER NEED. As soon as MALES=FEMALES throughout all parts of society, the violence will end.

Jan 26 2012:
Margaret Thatcher said she abandoned her womanhood when she entered politics. Female leaders have had to operate within male-designed and male-dominated systems. In order to get anywhere at all, they needed to act like men. Now is the time to change that, if we want a healthy, prosperous, happy, successful, society for all males and females. Let's equalize the power between males and females and just watch and enjoy the wonderful results. Seems worth a try.

Jan 29 2012:
Rhona, I get it. Testosterone-driven individuals have used brute force gleefully and have been praised as heros throughout most of human history. There is a female element (and I mean the kind of female element in us all--just as there is good and evil within us all) that needs to be openly used and applied with our heroic imagination. Our humanity will not evolve to a better condition with "alpha male" mentality. Any image of struggle reduced to "us" versus "them" is missing the point: We either work together for the betterment of humanity or we all suffer in the end. Margaret did what she thought she had to do in order to operate as an equal among men in a certain style of political men's club.

Feb 2 2012:
I would go a step further. Given that men have been largely in charge for the past few millennia, we should put women in complete charge for a similar length of time.

There is no possible way that they could cock it up as bad as men have. What's the worst that could happen. Russia will make a cutting comment about America and then America won't talk to Russia for a full week?

Feb 10 2012:
my dear boy you underestimate us...we are extremely powerful creatures and form extreme alliances and networks and can use our power to equal destructive use as men..in fact men employ many feminine powers to acheive their aims of evil so ithink just as that elven lady said to frodo do not tempt me instead of a dark lord you should have a terrible qween and all would bow benteath me..the thing is to destroy the ring of power..the circle of power the circle of power and weakness by burning it in the fire from whence it come the fire of knowledge perhpas..self knowledge?... and it is mostly the humble {more so than weak} who take the job of frodo and attempt to drag it through to the firre..as thos who would reballance power rather than relinquish it and in doing so relinquish weakness will inevitably be corrupted by it. so to each invividual comes the enormous taks to let go of power and weakness and the cycle of painand suffereing that comes from it...and that apraoch is non violence but also non weakness standong ones ground however small...

Feb 15 2012:
i think that both sexes have been repressed in many ways and that if you cling to the idea that women are repressed and men arent then your not seeing the whole picture... the whole of society has been built on power and violence its how we got where we are today and perhaps nessisarily so but its certainly where we are moving away from now and towards the future to a more equitable society for all men women children how about letting children go into power they are very sweet .... and will cut through any economically complex problem tot he heart of the matter ....they wont uphold anything overcomplicated because they wont understand iit and they will just see children dying in africa and say lets give them money and food and water.... great! there are certainly problems related to domination..but it is domination which is the key not whos dominating who... for instance there is a market amount of jews in banking should we say there must be less jews in power in banking becuase it in not equal or should we say that banking should become more compassionate as a whole and work towards a better system regardless of who or what race or what gender runs that system.? the subordination of women has in the past also benifited women and just as the system of domination gives out tokens it has given men token powers but these are just tricks andbadges men do not have real power they have been given th eillusionof power that they might better be kept quiet just as a man might give some money to his wife to stop her complaining baout the real issues so man is given totems of power because they like power its as shiney to them as a pair of jimmy choos to us and we are given nice things to buy and they are given nice jobs where they can feel powerfull while conforming to the system quietly... mans power is hush money... so ithink you need to see through what youve been taught about men and really question its validity in an equal society...

Feb 3 2012:
Jeffrey, I think society would be just as dysfunctional and perverse, if women dominated. The only solution to the world's problems is equality between men and women. It is the complementarity, the balance in perspective and approach that our world needs. Let's give that a try. Glad to see you are not afraid of women being in power, though. Wish all men could see how safe and happy they will be as soon as women and men sit equally in all places of power. Happy Today.

I agree that equality is the key to harmony. The best advice I ever received was on my wedding day "Just smile and agree and you'll be happy. If you are determined to have your say then become content with being unhappy." It's worked well for me for 20 years.

Misogyny never made sense to me. The philosophy of cutting out half of the energy, spirit and innovation of the human race seems like bad management.

Feb 10 2012:
you cannot sit in power and create equality equality and power do not mix. if one creates power one also creates its opposite weakness and that is not equality equality may never be a realistic outcome but lets be sure of the ideal at least and not mistake equality for anything which can contain power or weakness... like untity which anhialiates opposites equality anhialates inequality and power supoorts teh cycle of inequality and helps it to turn the wheel has turned to favour sometimes this and sometimes that sometimes one is winning sometimes losing but in an equal and unified state {which im not convinced can exist but still its an ideal worth trying for} there are no winners and losers. but just as there will always be difference among men and women perhaps there will always be winners and losers oppressors and oppressed violateor and victim perhpas this is the duality inherent in our existence... but i hope something close to equality can be acheived by integrating as much as we can just as men and women can come to know themselves more wholely by accepting their male facets if a woman and vice versa... such people are very attractive because they can connect with men and women in a different way than anyone stuck in their stereotype and rejecting theri own male attributes or subverting their feminine... so if people cna integrate male and female within themselves perhaps it spossible to integrate power and weakness within and maybe also without on a social level.

Jan 28 2012:
Really? I don't think so. Women fight so much dirtier than men. When men fight there are rules. When women fight there is no quarter... no survivors,,, no prisoners. Oh sorry maybe I mean when I fight...

Jan 29 2012:
Linda, perhaps what you are seeing is the absence of parenting or good parenting. And then there is "bullying." People are born with the desire to love and be loved. The negativity you speak of is the result of negative experiences such as brutality or deprivation of love and respect. I would not take those perversions as norms. You insult the vast majority of females when you do that.

Jan 29 2012:
Perhaps in your pollyanna world. This is the last time I try and state a truth and deflect the harshness. Don't try and tell me I insult women. This is prime example of lateral violence and I refuse to participate.

Jan 31 2012:
Linda, I wonder what makes you think your experience with women is more real or authentic than my experiences. Where you and I disagree, I will just assume that I am right and you are wrong. I guess you can understand that.

Feb 2 2012:
Rhona, you say " THE WOMEN'S REVOLUTION IS THE LAST REVOLUTION THAT THE WORLD WILL EVER NEED. As soon as MALES=FEMALES throughout all parts of society, the violence will end." also " In order to get anywhere at all, they needed to act like men. Now is the time to change that" I am aware this is not a complete quote but I want to point out your position seems to be, Women would make better leaders than men. This is a hypocrisy, this is just a flip of positions, not equality. Men and women can also not be equal, because we are not the same. We can all be treated equal, yes, but we cannot BECOME equal. It would not matter, male or female, black or white, christian or muslim. Human nature and basic needs and thought processes are the same. We are all human, there are good and bad, gental and vicious, etc etc. in all catagories, you are far over generalizing, thus getting away from the actual issue to suit your agenda, or so it seems. equality between males and females will not make peace. Understanding and acceptance among all people will be as much peace as we can hope for in humanity. There will never be an absolute peace. Nature, by its nature is violent, like all animals we will eventually have to fight to survive. Violence is a part of life, we can minimalize but not completely get rid of it.

Feb 2 2012:
Will Hawthorn, I disagree with you. Males are different than females. We have all noticed that. Females are equal to males. I wonder why males are so afraid to acknowledge their equality to women. Perhaps you can explain this very deep-rooted fear.

They say for a woman to be considered as good as a man, she needs to be twice as smart, work twice as hard, and have better social skills.

Fortunately, that is easy to do.

---

You do seem to reduce all conflict to the male domination of women. While I agree women are not treated equally, even in relatively egalitarian cultures, let alone Islamic and more patriarchal societies, I do not think our problems can be traced solely to this one issue.

Our problems are very likely symptoms of our collective human condition, not simply a consequence of men's "maleness."

And, as an aside, some of the most violent people I have ever interacted with have been women.

If you have trouble grasping the concept, I think that is the problem. Perhaps, if you meditate on it for a while, it will come to you that, indeed, MEN=WOMEN and, therefore, women should not be subordinated to men and men should not have superior power to women.

Feb 9 2012:
Dear Rhona
I am a wooman and I disagree with you about male equality to female and vice versa. I read most of your comments here and it seems to me that you are confused about your own believe.

As I understood your idea is that both males n females should have an equal “power” in decision-making, regardless of the sphere where those decisions should be made or implemented as well as that they also should be treated equally when executing these decisions. I totally agree with that, however it doesn’t make females = males in any other way.

Whether male’s methods are more violent than female’s – I personally believe that it all down to competition, which is in a human nature, regardless of our sex. We are all want to be better, cleverer, more successful, wealthier etc. etc.

Feb 9 2012:
Linda - I can tell you for a fact that there are plenty of men who don't fight to prove a point, show their honor, or even win the fight fair and square. I used to be on a SWAT team and I've worked with SAS, marines, etc.

And any fight is about walking away alive. There are some men who are much more vicious than any female I have ever met. Sure, one can always find the exceptions to the rule, but when you are taking the genders as statistical classes, I would be much more likely to turn my back on a woman than a man.

Having said that we are all humans and that means we all have good points and not so good points in all of us.

Feb 10 2012:
Jeffrey. I think you might be right about men being physically more viscous. They tend to like things that blow up and sharp objects. Women are just as viscous but we do not have the physical prowess. We engage in what is know as lateral or horizontal violence. In that we are at least as viscous as men. For instance, go ahead and walk away, but I can still get your career, if not that I can tie you up in court for years. That's just a small illustration of what I am talking about.

Jan 25 2012:
There is the case of revolutions when leaders will not move even if violence breaks out. Gaddafi held power with a strong hand and even blood shed. Are they really defending what they believe in? Are their morals so out of this world that they find violence an answer to defend their rule?

Jan 27 2012:
Against Adolf Hitler was there no other option but to use violence. He and his followers openly stated that what they sought was the annihilation of all opposition, Jewish, Christian, Allied... I think it was perfectly moral to use violence against him...and a duty. Was Jesus not violent in the Temple when he threw out the traders and money lenders? Was he wrong too?

Jan 27 2012:
Violence is a biological phenomea for propagation (creating so much as posible). Violence degenerate within the development of creatures. In order to have a future for the human being it necessary to overwelm behaviour in any kind of violence

Jan 25 2012:
I think that there are two possibilites:
1. The people who hold on to their positions do really believe in what they fight for. Take Adolf Hitler for example. If you have read his book "Mein Kampf" you can read that he really believed that he was doing the right thing and his believes were right, assuming it was his actual way of thinking and not just a piece of propaganda.
2. People who are in power simply don't want to lose the luxury that their position grants them, whether their ideas are wrong or right.

Jan 26 2012:
Koen: you are right in what you say, but there is a lot more to it. Your idea depends on a rather out of date mechanistic world view. Perhaps OK in the 19th century, but no longer. Hint: "atoms" don't exist". It all comes down to just what is human nature, anyway.

Jan 26 2012:
Of course I understand it's not this black and white, but I believe the core of the answer in these situations lies within these two options. And yes, human nature plays a big role in everything, but I don't see human nature as unexplainable and I think trying to clarify actions by simply calling it human nature is not a right answer.

Jan 27 2012:
Koen: what I was getting at is the internal logic of the power fans. Just as a proposition, I would say that, various dynastic extremists aside, "human nature", for probably hundreds of thousands of years has been that ,in small family groups and clans, succession of "leaders" was really not a matter of violence, but rather consensus. The assumption being that you don't do violence to "your own". Now in modern times, our groups are ever so much larger, and it is possible to talk about "them" vs. "us". But this habit that we have now is completely dependent on the idea that the them-us distintinction is "real", and justifies the violence. But I think this view is philosophical erroneous and ultimately (soon) indefensible. Sort of like the arguments about "Race"; a hundred fifty years ago it was scientifically defensible; now it is not. I think we are on the verge of finding out, as a culture, that human nature is what the Buddhists said, not the Christians.

Jan 26 2012:
Koen: I think you're absolutely right. The need of violence to transfer power is required as people are very concrete in regards to maintaining said power. You can look at this in a macro- or micro- sense, from the individual to the State in which that individual lives. Both actors will do whatever it takes to survive (Realist theory), and that means you MUST be the actor in the hold of greater power.

Neoliberally, one may say that cooperation between powers due to the interdependence that they have is the key to maintaining codependence. Neoliberalism is of course much more complex of a theory than Neorealism.

Feb 10 2012:
We should determine a ranking of bad to worse in the nature of coersion and violence. Where Genocide and Rape and murder are at one extreme and refusing to share my internet access with you is at the other. Then working from the worse end we should adress how to both respond to imediatly stop such an act and work out a method for in the long term making a n end to those worse forms of violence. I was assaulted sexually at the age of 5 very damaging to me mentally, I dream all the time about a moment when humans are setting foot on the moon or mars for a permement settlement. And in the speech some one says today we have a world of man that has never known war never known murder never has it had a hand raised against another no person of any age has been raped in fact not only has no hand been raised against an other, neither has any voice been raise in anger. This is a new time a new world and we undertake a sacred vow that it shall not ever know these things.

But that's a dream. Something in the nature of the league of nations should be reinstituted so that wherever a nation begins international or internal war or genocide , the other nations of the world could inundate them with troops carrying less lethal weapons( backed by more lethal ones should resistance to the peace keepers be to violent. )These troops should be ceded to and commanded by the UN maybe 100 troops from each county l 100 thousand troops plus or minus could pretty quickly put the brakes on some thing like Somalia or Uganda The UN should have access to the satellite intel of its security council members, and the UN should develop a air sea and space force that could in the air provide air support to UN missions, on sea carry out environmental and anti piracy & SAR. In space when privatization is the future and airliners are WMD a orbital coast guard with police powers is the only way to keep space from becoming an armed extention of nationalist conflict.

Feb 9 2012:
"Wrong" is a relative term. What some percieve as right, others percieve as wrong due to cultural differences or different moral systems to which they are used.

To answer your question, the people who still hold on to their positions or ideas or even habits DON'T actually know they are wrong either because they don't know the negative implications of their actions or because they choose to close their eyes and be ignorant of them.

As to the matter of "revolutions", in my humble opinion no revolution happens without being allowed to happen. In this century, nothing is spontaneous anymore.

Feb 6 2012:
Hi Stefan, I think that of the three essential power bases (violence/wealth and knowledge)violence is the most readily available and inclusive of all three powers. The other two are seemingly elitist and unattainable for many so the default setting to transfer power is ultimately violence. Although not necessarily needing less thought, endeavor or tenacity, I believe violence connects via our primal instinct and not only pre-dates knowledge and wealth but will arguably conquer both in the end if allowed to endure in sufficient enough quantities. Also I see that violence can often be seen a leveler (of say race or class) and so through the ages has featured in key events where either wealth and/or knowledge have failed.

Feb 6 2012:
Humans are social animals, the easiest way to transfer power is to cripple or destroy the thing that is currently in power. This is achieved by mostly violence because it is the easiest way to harm others.

Comment deleted

Feb 6 2012:
Thank you for the link Richard.
Gene SHarp's observations are a critical peice in the resolution of non-resource based conflict.
THis might be a critical evolutionary factor to prevent unecessary fragmentation promoted by resource injustices.

Jan 28 2012:
because, sadly, violence is a huge part of human nature, which dictates behavior too often. We are still animals, after all, with a "superior" brain. But this human brain is often underused or bypassed by the urge to use force.

Also this:
Put the history of violence on a timeline: It's been used and accepted since the dawn of the human race, for thousands and thousands of years. The concepts of peaceful settlements are relatively "new". The UN was created less than a hundred years ago. What's that compared to thousands of years during which violence was a part of everyday life?

The peaceful homo sapiens is just a toddler...

Fortunately, there are examples that show peaceful resolutions of conflicts work: Gandhi, the revolution in Portugal, Czechoslovakia, etc.

This shows us the 20th and 21st century human is capable of evolving and has found a new way to solve conflicts.

Be patient, tell your children to tell their children there are many ways other than violence to make a dent in the universe.

Jan 29 2012:
Walk through an elementary school on any given day and watch 6,7 and 8 year old girls have at it like it's the Jerry Springer show.

You know Rhona, 40 years ago I remember the quote: "Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice."
That is just not true anymore. Not of every woman. Women are just as violent and aggressive as men. They might not have the brute strength of men, but they can still manipulate events, and attack if provoked.

As a matter of fact, girls, even in the elementary schools are violent. I remember one particular day walking through the halls of a school, and observing pieces of hair on the floor. Upon investigation, I discovered two girls had a huge fight, and one proceeded to pull the hair of another. It was done with such hatred that the pieces came off.

I was shocked.....I had never seen anything like it. My view of girls changed.

Jan 29 2012:
Mary,. it seems likely that girls growing up in a male designed and male dominated system would show some perversions in their behavior, since they never received the respect and acknowledgement of their equality to men. Do you understand the self-hatred women who have anorexia and bulimia and other psychological ailments because women are taught that they are not as valuable to society as men? When girls and boys, men and women are treated as equals throughout all institutions and societal systems, both can behave normally. Men won't need machismo and women won't need their psychological distortions. Then they can all be who they really are.

Feb 9 2012:
Rhona, I understand where you are coming from, however, if we women wait to be treated fairly and equally before changing our behaviour patterns, we will wait till the end of our days. The answer is probably in awareness and education and not in feeling sorry for ourselves.

Jan 29 2012:
I do not know your reality, but you are sadly mistaken. There is a saying, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." ~ William Congreve, 1697. He wrote that for a reason. I was not kidding when I said that women are viscous.

Jan 29 2012:
Linda, I can only assume that you are describing yourself. You insult women. Have you considered that you may be incorrect in this negative conclusion you are trying to put forth as "fact?" My experience is differerent than yours, apparently. I have reached a different conclusion than you have.

Jan 29 2012:
If the truth insults you so be it. You have probably been enculturated in your belief and that is fine. But women are as violent if not more violent than men. We just apply it differently.
There are many many examples in nature and we are a product of nature.

In my experience, women participate in a type of violence that is not direct. They even have a term for it. It is called lateral violence or horizontal violence. This is the type of violence that is a sequela of oppressed group behavior.http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/lateral-violence/

Just google the terms. You will find lots of hits. Your refusal to acknowledge this behavior perpetuates it.

Jan 31 2012:
Linda, I can't figure out why you are so certain that what you utter is the truth and reach the conclusion that, since you do not agree with me, I must be wrong. At least you acknowledge that women are oppressed. I wonder how you would suggest ending the oppression of women. I am open to your positive suggestions. We will have more truth in communication, when males equal females. I wonder why men are so terrified of acknowledging their equality to women and living according to that truth that they surely must realize.

Let me ask you, do you feel that the reason thousands of women are sitting in jail today is because we continue to be oppressed, and only when we are treated as equals will we stop being violent?

I am asking, because I think there is a breakdown of communication between you and Linda, and I want to understand both of you better.

If women's violence is a result of....."women are taught that they are not as valuable to society as men", then why are men violent?........who are they suppose to be imitating in order to be peaceful?

Jan 29 2012:
I think this discussion is not for this century. Women indeed are less prone to physical violence, but that doesn't mean they can't make decisions of sending troops in other countries or nuke an enemy one. I doubt Obama thrown a punch in his life but that doesn't mean he doesn't take malevolent decisions. I think that as long as we have a system based on money and competition for survival, scarcity and crime will always exist.

Feb 10 2012:
Rhona, You keep saying things like "violence is not the way of women" as if it was universally true.

Three of the four most violent and destructive people I have ever had to deal with personally have been women.

I think you may be exaggerating a tendency. Sure women are nurturing, but so are men. And men can be violent but so can women.

It is predominantly men who fight in wars but that is partly because most cultures will not allow women to fight. When they are allowed to, they fight just as aggressively as men. (For example, women are now becoming suicide bombers.)

Most domestic violence is perpetrated by men, but by no means, all of it.

Your view seems to be overly simplistic and biased.

This is not a "man thing." Nor is it a "woman thing." It is a "human thing."

Feb 11 2012:
Thomas, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. If you were a woman who lived in a culture that treated women as they are treated within those cultures, ..............
I respectfully disagree with you.

Feb 15 2012:
i dont think thats true and im wondering what your basing that idea on? as i think you were already asked? we would expect a man to uphold his claims that all women were some way or another and i expect you to do the same. just becuase your a woman doenst mean you can go around saying things that sound nice with no evidence. andi would go further to say how dare you deny me a woman the right to be everything a man is and more! any violence man can do i can do better i can do anything better than you...no you cant... yes i can... so your really limeting women by saying we are not violent. also your overlooking the fact that men are totally repressed in our society as well... and have not had the abliity to express their true nature and therefore have had create things like the underground porn industry and prostitution to secretly fullfill needs that we should accept are part of their nature....men are as repressed for example they are not supposed to express emotion but thats fine for a woman...what does that do to our society? we have a society with as its formation many years of control over our moral relational and familial lives down to a nessesity perhaps at the time to coelesc power and the only means of doing that to exploit and control both men and women their relations their bodies etc... if you want equality you have to start thinking equally first before anything in the world can change. if you yourself have such prejudiced beliefs about men and women then how can you expect the world to be any different? think of all the men who are expected to be violent without question and put down if they are not..people whove been forced to perform violence to women and violence to others just to be accepted in society ..like soldiers who are expected to go to war and kill and not cry about it. many vets are psychologically disturbed by that and even in more subtle ways we uphold these ideas as if they were truth without question. where did these ideas come from?

Feb 15 2012:
If men and women acknowledged their equality to each other and lived according to that truth, both would be different in ways that yield more health and happiness for both. For example, men would not need to repress their emotions, if women had 50% of the power. Maybe prostitution and pornography would disappear, when women and men are living within the truth of their equality. Maybe women and men could just be who they really are and feel no need to manipulate others to get what they need or want. I think what I think. I believe what I believe. I respect your right to think and believe differently than I do. Thank you for your expression of your true thoughts and feelings on this matter.

Jan 28 2012:
Stefan, you posed an interesting question. Why do us, as humans fight even though we know we may be wrong, even though we know that violence is wrong. Well, I have thought about this and I found an analogy that works perfectly. Out in the wild you meet a lion. The lion is full and is not interested in you. Until you pick up a stick and poke the lion. Now, the lion would have been a 'peaceful' lion is angry. Of course as you may have guessed, the lion would most likely strike whoever poked it.

Well the same thing works for people. In the words of a roman philosopher, give the people food and entertainment and they will never revolt. The thing is, these people in Egypt, Libya, Seryia, etc. they have been oppressed, beaten, killed, robbed, and cheated out of a fair life. So, much like the lion, these people who are no different than us, are angry and want change. Of course, the people who have the power, who have these basic life necessities and luxuries, don't want to give that up. So.... They fight.

Jan 27 2012:
Violence is a biological phenomea because of principal propagation (so much as posible). As more as creature are developed as more there are degenerated forms. In spite of this it is necssary to overcome this phenomea.

Jan 28 2012:
Mr. K: violence as it stands has a useful meaning, to distinguish it from a lack of violence. I'm afraid if we accept your re-definitions, it will lose all usefulness. For example: Gandhi was "intolerant" of British Imperialism, and opposed it in various ways. So that makes him "violent"? Another point is that all of your forms of v. are almost always political issues in a society, and usually the real reason for the violence is a glaring lack of civilised procedures to address them. Take Bin Laden , for example: he had serious complaints about disrespect shown to Islam, such as the presence of foreign troops in Mohammed's home area. If there had been any readily available legal procedure for complaining about this, he probably would have tried that first, but such a scheme still does not exist. The same is true for changing regimes; the only reason for the violence is the lack of alternatives. In daily life, we can phone up the Police; internationally there is nothing better now than summmoning up a gang of like minded vigilantes, if you can find any.

Jan 28 2012:
I have not redefined the meaning of the word violence. Here is the entry from the American Heritage dictionary of the English Language:

vi·o·lence (v-lns) n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

So, yes, to your point, Gandhi did practice a form of "technical" violence as per #6 above. Was he a violent person in any real sense of the word? Of course not, and to all of our betterment.

Please re-examine my statement and you'll find that all of my examples are equally valid as being personal issues as they are of being political issues.

Jan 29 2012:
Religious and political fanatics are/have been in every walk of life. And it stems from unrealistic fear.The Catholics killed in the name of God during the crusades. People in America shoot politicians from time to time. Most people are very willing to follow a strong leader. Sad to say. Look at the Tibetans. The chinese are slaughtering them even as I type this. Tibetans are largely peaceful and The Chinese government is afraid of losing it's power if people listen to the Tibetan philosophy. IGNORANCE is the root of all violence.

Jan 26 2012:
It seems as if humans rarely accept that they are incorrect.

Politically, the theory of NeoRealism would describe this the best. In short, each State must do whatever it may in the International Community to survive (maintain sovereignty), as the International Community is anarchic (in a sense that there is no formal hierarchy of who is above who).

In order to uphold as a State in the international system, you must survive.. no matter what your endogenous beliefs or cultures may be. The 'Game' is survival, the 'Rules' are to take whatever action there is available to survive.

Jan 26 2012:
Remember Gandhi? He showed the power of non violence. He called India's freedom struggle 'Satyagraha'. The word literally is a combination of two words meaning truth + request. An evolved and powerful concept.

Jan 27 2012:
Nonviolence is true power. The world's definition of power is the use of force, but it takes almost infinite courage to refrain from use of force. In fact, a philosopher I once knew said that strength is not breaking the other's guy's nose with your fist, but really it is keeping your fingers open in order to shake hands.

Feb 9 2012:
Ragini Lal,
Gandhi (?), yes. Mahatma. "Satyagraha" inspired "Truth and Reconciliation" conferences lead by Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. It inspired Martin Luther King's million man march. I think it also had a role in Prague Spring (thanks Dubcek) and more recently the Arab Spring (Gene Sharp, you're one ubermensch).

Verble, can we wield an unstoppable peace? I agree with the "almost infinite courage" required.

Feb 9 2012:
We need more leaders who understand this concept of peaceful protest. It requires great courage and great integrity. Only a leader with great integrity can inspire great courage in his / her followers. Mahatma Gandhi was one such leader. We see a reflection in the recent protests against corruption in India by Anna Hazare too

Feb 9 2012:
His non violence was a wonderful method, but it also relied on violence, the violence of the opposition.In fact all authority is supported by violence, the law uses imprisonment even death to punish law breakers even in this civilized peaceful world.Parents use the denial of privileges or spankings, schools take your free after school time with detentions worse they can decide to ruin your future by consistently giving you bad grades and evaluations.There exists no human interaction where one has power and authority over others with out the threat of violence in some form. The boss who can fire you, the police officer who can choose to write or no write the ticke

Feb 10 2012:
I think Russell has a point. Gandhi didn't have an army with guns, his non-violence principle was the only strategy for him and India to counteract the ruthless brutes on the other side. If we humans ever learn, a realistic approach to a more peaceful world in the 21st century is "Satyagraha" + weapons (for self-defense only). Having said that, a world without the need of weapons and violence is of course a noble goal to strive for; in the meantime, we should work on eliminating any kind of coercion by way of sensibility and reason.

Jan 26 2012:
A society ruled by law needs:
1. Regularly scheduled free elections, not at the whim of the politicians.
2. Term limits on all politicians. A politician is a representative of the people. It should never be a career.
3. Independent media, free to criticize the government.

Now, we have most of that here in the U.S., but we still get power hungry people winning the powerful offices. We need to follow Mark Twain's advice: Elect those who don't want the office. They're less likely to abuse it.

Jan 26 2012:
well, the ancient Greeks had a scheme for this: choose legislators by lottery. Presumably , most people wouldn't want it. Sort of like jury duty. Needless say, it wasn't a smashing success. I guess the only real answer is an educated public.. We in the US have certainly slacked off drastically in that department. Our students spend lots of time doing busy work, but the results are poor, naturally. As a point of reference, the Wright Brothers, with a public school education, were able to competently engineer their airplanes by using the Newtonian high school physics they had learned at their school.

Jan 25 2012:
Where do leaders come from… usually they are from the military (men of violence) or politicians (politics = poli = many / tics = blood suckers) so the pool of potential leaders is full of self-selected, over-confident, ego maniacs. It’s hardly surprising they find it hard to relinquish power.

The best leaders are often the ones who have leadership thrust upon them - Gandhi was a shy man who found speaking in public incredibly difficult, as was King George VI - neither wanted fame or power yet both won the hearts and minds of millions through their commitment and their humility.

Jan 25 2012:
Because it is natural and normal and has always been thus. Anyone enjoying power will rarely give it up willingly...only those who have been forced into power will do so rationally. All animals with hierarchical structures change hierarchies with a demonstration of physical strength, usually violent. I think it is genetically ingrained. Any amount of rationality that we enjoy can't cope against 2 million years of conditioning...but the situation will change, gradually, over time.

Jan 26 2012:
Well, cheer up. Taking the long view, groups managing a rule of law have gotten ever larger, and the cycles of "civilisaton" made to seem more "normal" throughout recorded history. We will no doubt forever have a "tendency" to violence, just as we have a "tendency" to get drunk, but that doesn't force us to do anything. I would say flatly, that all the terrible atrocities of the last hundred years were NOT "caused" by these tendencies, but rather because, as an example, in 1914, there was simply no "alternative" but to fight. Just as in our recent Iraq war: there was no law against it, and those in power simply could not imagine any alternative. Such is our Half barbaric condition right now.

Feb 2 2012:
Saw a documentary on Steven Pinker's new book which describes how, with the establishment of the state, societies are actually becoming less and less violent...though the news seems to concentrate on it more and more.

Feb 2 2012:
Yes, I think that's probably right. It's easy to forget how violent the less regulated societies in our past (even our recent past) were. But I would guess that the improvements have come mostly from laws & policing and the moral habits/customs that have grown out of that history. If the policing disappears, as could happen in a widespread and deep crisis, the moral compunctions brought about by custom would quickly yield, and we would revert to our basic fight for survival. The veneer of civilization is still a thin one.

Jan 28 2012:
David: about the hierarchies' changes: in the animal world, it seems that it is not really "violent", but more like a demonstration of strength; very little damage is done, compared to humans. But even we, frequently use "elections" as a demonstration of power. It is enough, ususally.

Feb 2 2012:
So you've never seen elephant seals mortally wound each other in a fight for dominance, or fighting stags, or lions emasculate pretenders by biting off their genitals, hippos bite each other's tails off so they can't spread their scent...

Feb 16 2012:
i think your intuitively correct in that but as you aslo say the power structure itself is a male shaped thing ....and really what women excel at is complicated heirarchies not linear ones we excell at inclusive comunities not exclusive ones. as you say thatcher had to cut off her tits to join the club but we are free to create our own clubs now and disengage with male shaped governance we have room to man or womaneuvre and build alternative structures which build our own wealth based on need to provide for our kids food shelter etc and not profit nad bussiness which is meaningless to a hungry child. we have many practical abilities which even the normal man on the street cant get his head around like how to cook a potatoe cos theyre off in the clouds and just sticking a fifty percent limit on the amount of men in power i think is unfair. theres not as amany women in politics for a start and its a free vote if people wanted to vote for a woman they would but if you had to have ewuality forced i dont think thats a good thing. imagine we had to have sarah palin hand in hand with obama jsut to make things fair? do you really think women need to be handed the equality? just to make things fair? like its a bit patronizing..or matronizing perhaps.

Feb 13 2012:
It is odd, but some what expected, that a conversation of revolutions and needing violence to transfer power turns into an argument about gender equality. To make my (most likely) last comment on the gender issue, Miss Pavis, you seem to be a great example of" holding onto our positions or ideas even if we know we are wrong" aka scientific evidence, even googling such things about how the human psych works proves your stance wrong. I believe (to try to answer the original question of this conversation) that we believe we are right and rightous in our beliefs and ways, we as humans don't like to be proven wrong. For example say a (Man 1) kills (Man2) for killing (Man1)s brother, later when (Man 1) learns that his brother murdered and defiled (Man2)s family, he will most likely deny that his brother would do that and that he was set up or the other man lied etc. etc. Obviously not the best example as there are many other variables in that senario. My point is, we like being right, for our self confidence and to complete certain acts we must make ourselves belief that our path is the right one.

Feb 12 2012:
Thomas Jones, (No reply button next to your name so I'm replying here.) Thank you for expressing your true thoughts and feelings on the subject. Sometimes things have impacts that are far reaching. When battles between people, e.g., Ireland and England, Greece and Turkey, go on for hundreds of years does anyone remember the cause, the actual cause, of why one group of people started hating the other group enough to want them dead and take action to bring about their death? Yet, the group that has no idea or memory of the cause of the hostility, will participate as though the battle were their own. It is possible that the big lie that it's okay for males to dominate females in every part of society is exactly what is screwing up our otherwise loving world. I appreciate your input to this discussion, because it is apparent that you are seeking truth. Right on!

Feb 17 2012:
firstly yes i think man and women are equal the only difference being physical. i do not think that humans are born loving but are raised to be that way. they are born as blank slates with minor mental and physical characteristics that effect their out look on life. most wars are started not do to gender differences but because of religion or for monetary gain of land and resources. many religions also state that women are 'inferior' the bible being one of them. so many of the wars would not have been stopped if a women was in charge for they would have still would have been raised in the same way that the men where. but by today's standards women are treated for better then they have in the past. and as the ignorance of the past is slowly corroded away with time and proper education equality becomes ever closer. (so long as religion stays out of the system and the system stays out of religion)